Is there some kind of identifiable or tangible advantage to simply having lighter skin? Absolutely not. I would take Claudio Simpkins' life over my own any day.

you want to be on the side of a bus?

more to the point, you acknowledged somewhere else that aa helps build the idea that young black kids can grow up to be doctors, scientists, lawyers, etc. doesn't that suggest that the idea is pretty weak at the moment? this in and of itself can be a major disadvantage, don't you think?

Being on the side of a bus for getting HLS from CUNY when I grew up in a comfortable middle-class family would be very nice. Yes, I would want that.

More on subject, I totally advocate for AA as a means to achieving greater professional parity and as a tool to help young children aim higher.

But there are plenty of trailer parks where white kids grow up not having any clue that they are capable of doing something besides selling propane or joining the military. Their white skin doesn't give them this advantage anymore than it would to a light-skinned black child growing up in South Bronx.

Edit: To clarify, a black child whose father is an associate at Skadden has far more exposure to the kind of advantages that I am talking about than a white child who lives in Camden, NJ. The skin color doesn't factor into this equation very much at all.

Skin color does become important on a macro level, though, where black people have achieved positions of social status in volumes that are not proportional to their numbers in the population at large. What this means is that a black child is *more likely* to have an insufficient amount of role-models than a white child.

But it's a huge mistake to say that people are privileged for being "white", when in fact, they are privileged for being socio-economically advantaged. Millions of white people don't have these socio-economic advantages. Assuming that they are privileged simply for their skin color is wrong.

Is a white orphan kid that grows up in foster homes and spends his life in prison "privileged?" No, he's not.

I'm presenting ideas that take into account a little bit more than the past 50 years of white-guilt driven sociological academia, and in response, I get eyerolls.

Reread what you just posted, and ask yourself why you're getting eyerolls. You can't dismiss "50 years of white-guilt driven sociological academia" as misguided, agenda-driven nonsense simply because you believe you know better that that.

Do the African Americans in this country have a terrible and abusive history? Absolutely.

I'm glad you admit this, and implicitly, that history matters. Now turn your head and admit that these mainstream ideas, centered around the black person as being inhuman or subhuman, are not that far in the past. It's not a stretch to think there are residual impacts of that theme.

Is there some kind of identifiable or tangible advantage to simply having lighter skin? Absolutely not. I would take Claudio Simpkins' life over my own any day.

Such as here.

Here's an obvious advantage: most CEO's and business owners will, all other things being equal, and not beholden to diversity laws, hire a white person over a black person.

Perhaps it's because you're in New York that you have a very limited experience of what race is in America. In most places in the US, outside of a handful of large cities, a black person is an outsider, even more so than an Asian, Native American, or Hispanic (though I would argue that a Muslim is probably very quickly gaining a notoriety and distrust because of this bull association with radical Islamics). People in America still largely distrust black people, but men especially, and even fear them.

Don't believe me? Visit any large message board or blog, with a huge population of posters from around the US. Or even better - ask a black person how they feel about being in small town, rural America. And then ask a white person how she might feel in, say, parts of Detroit or New Orleans or wherever.

Reread what you just posted, and ask yourself why you're getting eyerolls. You can't dismiss "50 years of white-guilt driven sociological academia" as misguided, agenda-driven nonsense simply because you believe you know better that that.

At one point the best academia on the subject of racial relations asserted that African Americans were somehow genetically inferior to whites. Clearly, this is bull$hit. Social Academia tends to be a self-propagating group of closed-minded people who reiterate the same or similar beliefs until the next groundbreaking movement occurs. I'm not saying that sociology is not a legitimate field - I am just saying that it's an extremely complex one that tends to evolve. The understanding of the social construct of "whiteness" as understood by popular contemporary American sociologists is in my experience simply inadequate.

Quote

Now turn your head and admit that these mainstream ideas, centered around the black person as being inhuman or subhuman, are not that far in the past. It's not a stretch to think there are residual impacts of that theme.

Indeed, there are remnants of these attitudes in modern day society. And yet the mainstream ideas that Jews, Polaks, Russians, Italians, Irish, Chinese, and Japanese people are subhuman or inhuman are not very far in the past either. My only qualm is with the idea of "white privilege" - there may well be a significant amount of privilege for people whose families have historically dominated the American socioeconomic landscape, but this privilege does not extend to people who in the recent past have been equated to dogs.

Quote

Hooray, you're not hopeless.

Thank you. I do understand the history of this country, and I do get why many black people have the right to be very upset with their lot here. But so do many white people. That's my entire point.

Quote

Here's an obvious advantage: most CEO's and business owners will, all other things being equal, and not beholden to diversity laws, hire a white person over a black person.

In my experience this is simply not true. For example, in my firm, we have begun to actively go out and recruit associates of color, because we want to fight the impression that we are a racist firm. This isn't due to any law against racism - this is due to the fact that clients demand that their legal advisers are representatively diverse. It's no longer socially acceptable or profitable to be racist in the America I know. This is a good thing. It's been a long time coming!

Quote

Perhaps it's because you're in New York that you have a very limited experience of what race is in America. In most places in the US, outside of a handful of large cities, a black person is an outsider, even more so than an Asian, Native American, or Hispanic (though I would argue that a Muslim is probably very quickly gaining a notoriety and distrust because of this bull association with radical Islamics). People in America still largely distrust black people, but men especially, and even fear them.

I will grant you that. My opinion is by definition subjective. But here's the crux of the argument - in the enviornment where I grew up, being white was a huge *dis*advantage, and so I think it is unfair to say that people are priviledged just by being white. This is my entire bone to pick. The idea that *all* white people are being placed into one silly classification is every bit as racist as the idea that all black people should be considered the same.

The whole concept of race is a bull$hit way to classify people, and propagating the myth that *all* people of one race or another have *anything* in common is not something that I agree with.

Quote

Don't believe me? Visit any large message board or blog, with a huge population of posters from around the US. Or even better - ask a black person how they feel about being in small town, rural America. And then ask a white person how she might feel in, say, parts of Detroit or New Orleans or wherever.

I do believe you. I don't think your post disagrees with my beliefs in any way. I think you and I are basically of the same opinion on this matter. As I said, there is a macro problem in America. I readily adhere to this belief. What I don't necessarily buy is that a macro issue necessarily affects all individuals on a micro level. It simply does not.

There are many disadvantaged white kids. There are many disadvantaged black kids. There are far more advantaged white kids than black kids, I concede that; but that doesn't do much good for the individual white kids who have to struggle to survive. To then call these kids recipients of some kind of "white privilege" is both disingenuous and harmful to a productive dialogue on race in America.

And then ask a white person how she might feel in, say, parts of Detroit or New Orleans or wherever.

I've always been curious to see a study on this -- surveys of random people taken to various neighborhoods, asking them about their perception of the crime rate, and then comparing it to an actual crime rate. Is there a perfect correlation to actual crime rates? (I'd be surprised if that were true.) If there is a bias, is it from poorly maintained buildings? The race of the occupants? Percent of mental illness? Etc. I'd be curious to see a multivariable regression on the subject: what percent of the variation in crime perception is actually explained by crime rates? Race? Average building age? Etc.

Come on...lets get those angry replies started now...you know the one's where you say "You're being a homo-phobe" or the ones where you say "That's not acceptable language.." etc....etc...

Anything to get us off this ridiculous, over-used discussion, about a use-less policy that perpetuates the myth that African-Americans can't possibly help themselves (40 years after the civil rights movement of all things) and we (us elitist and all powerful white-folk) are actually doing them a favor by giving them a "helping hand" that they need. (or want)

White people - white men in particular - don't need a history month, dude. That's the point. There's a black history month, a women's history month, a whatever history month because history as it is taught is white male history. That may be changing, but that doesn't change the fact that the reason we have these things is because there was/is a deficiency in the way our society has addressed history. Not because black history, women's history, etc., are more celebrated, but precisely because they have been ignored. If you'd like, we can refer to every month without a special designation as white male history month. Would that make you feel better?

No it wouldn't. Because there is no such thing as a "White Male". I have never in my life taken a history class that has ever said *anything* positive about my culture. In every history class I have taken, Russian people have been portrayed as *at best* bumbling fools, and at worst powermad communist imperialists. No such thing as a white male? You later say your family gave up much of its culture to simply be "american" <--this is WHITE MALE...and this is a part of privilege. The fact that you have that luxury. The fact is that, if someone of color wanted to "give up" their culture, they could only to a certain extent. THere would be many in society who no matter what, would only see a Black person.

Race is a social construction, and the American Educational system tries to forcefeed me bull$hit about how *my* ancestors killed the Native Americans, and enslaved Africans. I don't know who these "white men" who dominate the American History curriculum are, but they sure as hell aren't my ancestors, and they aren't the ancestors of the vast majority of so called "white" people living in the United States today.

How are you able to ascertain the ancestry of the majority of white people in this country? It is one thing to say they are not YOURS, but that just seems like a convenient assumption. Actually, many families have been here for generations (black and white) and have benefited from the social constructions that society created since the mass murder of the Native Americans and enslavement of Africans.

I actually find it quite sad that you don't think white Americans have a cultural identity! This is also a huge indication of WHITE PRIVILEGE. It's like you view WHITENESS as such the norm, that it's not even considered "culture", it's just American. Think about this....4th of July-Independence Day....It's an American holiday but who was REALLY gaining freedom? Whites in America, not blacks, and surely not the few Native Americans that still existed. But there is no Emancipation Day and we can both bet a pretty valuable body part that if there were, it would not be widely celebrated by all races (Disagree? what did you do last Juneteenth? What celebrations happened on TV, in Times Square?). Thanksgiving--surely you don't assume that Native Americans are thankful for Pilgrims coming and raping and stealing their land, spreading diseases from Europe. and killing most of their community? There were blacks in America by this time point, many who had came on previous voyages but they too had nothing to celebrate. See, there is a way of mainstreaming WHITENESS as AMERICAN-Ness. I think the reason some on this board are so frustrated with you is because you refuse to acknowledge these most basic principles.Please google the Clark Doll Study. In dealing with education for some, students sit down and realize that people that looked like them had the smarts and finances to sail across the world, "find" a new place (how do you find something that has already been discovered? There were civilizations already set up in America but because White (men) had the privilege of writing history, they "discovered"), tame an entire race of people, and set up shop as what we now think of as one of the best countries in the world.

Now there are some students who walk in and learn that people that looked like them were stolen and brought to a place and forced to give up their culture, their language, their families, their religions, and start brand new so they could be molded into a subservient role in order to build a nation. NOw of course this isn't where the history of blacks starts (not even in America. Read a book called, "They Came Before Columbus") but again, because Blacks did not have the PRIVILEGE of writing their own history, it's most important parts have been omitted.

Also, please do not operate with the faulty notion that IMMIGRATING to America is the same as being RAPED, BEATEN, STOLEN, and KIDNAPPED. There are real differences and real consequences.

ETA: I'm going to say one final thing to Bearly and anyone else who thinks that his arguments are just so insightful and amazing - something I think that you, Bearly, are completely missing. Acknowledging white privilege is not the same as saying that white privilege is the only operating force in the lives of people in this country. It is an operating force. Yes, wealth/the lack thereof and interrelated class issues also have a role. Yes, geography plays a role. Yes, other personal issues/characteristics are important. As I have been saying all along, white privilege is not about saying that all white people are the same or have the same experience. If you were willing to look past a knee-jerk reaction that "omg all white people aren't the same and my life is hard too," you might be able to recognize that.